In the 1981 case of United States v. Lee, the Supreme Court ruled an Amish farmer named Edwin Lee could not refuse to pay Social Security payroll taxes for his employees despite his religion's clear rejection of social insurance:
"When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice," the Court's unanimous opinion said, "the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity.":

We shall see if the Roberts Court reveals a seemingly hyper-partisan bias toward women----or if fairness will prevail and the Hobby Lobby case will be found as above in the Edwin Lee case.
Which would be sensible for a court. The reasoning in the Lee case should also hold in Hobby Lobby.

4:27 pm June 29, 2014

Henry wrote:

I suggest that businesses be allowed to opt out of including contraceptive coverage in the medical insurance they make available to their employees, but I would require any business that so chooses to pay in cash to each employee the monetary value of the contraceptive coverage. If the individual employee then chooses to use that money to buy contraceptives, it is entirely her (or his) own concern and no concern of the business.

4:48 pm June 29, 2014

The word farce comes from the Latin. meaning "to stuff" wrote:

Hobby Lobby has no substantial burden at all, their case is theatrical.
Hobby Lobby is very clearly a for-profit corporation. It is a secular corporation, not a religious organization.
It sells crafts. it’s all about materialism & material goods. The owners personal religion is not relevant.
What the owners are doing is part of a well financed right wing strategy to limit contraception and rally the masses against birth control and abortion. (but never mens' Viagra...)
Hobby Lobby already misrepresented certain contraception as abortion devices in their case to the court. The justices appeared amazinly uninformed on what constitutes abortion devices in early discussions.

By denying employees, Hobby Lobby is denying what employees have a legal entitlement to since insurance is a form of pay that is not a wage. The owners’ personal religion does not invalidate a woman’s right to that insurance. Corporations are not people. The owners are trying to control and in effect abuse the rights of their employees.
And it is evident employees are already paying for their own contraception by paying for their insurance coverage. Hobby Lobby is not paying for it. So as lawyers have argued, what so-called religious requirement IS there to force employees to pay for contraception a 2nd time, or to obtain it from another 3rd party. Someone said it is almost wage theft.
But this case is a blatant attack on women and rights of women to determine their reproductive lives given to a compromised, right wing court which has a majority of republicans making decisions based on their own religious & political beliefs, rather than on blind justice or law.

4:48 pm June 29, 2014

Memphis wrote:

In her sole imperial discretion as Secretary of HHS, Sebelius decided to include exactly one non prescription drug to be provided free of charge to every female in the country. That drug is the morning after pill, which is a massive dose of oral contraceptive. In order to get access to regular contraceptives, one must visit a doctor and get a prescription. Sebelius and the Obama administration contend that this decision is in the interest of women's health. There had been zero medical testing of the effect of the morning after pill on the health of girls under the age of 18.

Providing the morning after pill is the sole objection Hobby Lobby has to Obamacare.

5:09 pm June 29, 2014

But..legally.... wrote:

Denying a class of benefits to employees based on gender is not at all permitted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and this includes insurance benefits in the form of prescription contraception.

5:10 pm June 29, 2014

Terry330 wrote:

America needs to break away from the 2,000 year old myths of Christian religion. Embrace modern science, move US forward.

5:31 pm June 29, 2014

Supreme Court needs to not be ideological and see the big picture wrote:

Under Hobby Lobby’s assertion, then, an employer could intervene and insist that a woman’s attending physician refuse to provide her with a pain-saving epidural during an arduous labor because the bible says “in suffering shalt thou bear thy children.” The employer could argue --it says it in the bible----it is my religious freedom, and my bible.
So how far will corporations like Hobby Lobby take this??
Can anyone sitting in those supreme court thrones see what a farce this can be? This is insane.

6:16 pm June 29, 2014

Insane, as well as bogus wrote:

Hobby Lobby traditionally does a ton of business with China. Hobby Lobby 's own money goes specifically to a government that welcomes abortions to promote a one child policy for the communist nation.
How is giving money to China by Hobby Lobby business deals of buying and selling just fine with their so called corporate religious beliefs about abortion? Thiis is a good example of how corporattions are NOT PEOPLE. And Hobbly Lobby has no standing.
By trading with China which promotes abortions---is Hobby Lobby acting in line with their beliefs and values? But, with a Hobby Lobby employee purchasing contraceptives, this is against Hobby acting in line with their beliefs and values????? So they want a religous exemption? NUTSO
This shows what total b.s. the Hobbly Lobby challenge to the court really is.

10:18 am June 30, 2014

hier wrote:

how much socialized medicine do we want to adopt into the required payouts from a corporation or business? do contraceptives fall into the category of something that should be free to workers in every capacity, or is working a benefit as far as social life is concerned in general whereby that person might be able to afford a contraceptive (choice there as well - for instance differences in their company's bottom line and industry, opportunity cost, economies of scale, etc...)

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.